Gustave A. Le More and Leontee Le More were claimants of 830 bales of cotton that had been seized by the United States during the Civil War. The claimants argued that the cotton had been seized without due process of law and that they were entitled to compensation for the cotton. The Supreme Court held that the seizure of the cotton was valid and that the claimants were not entitled to compensation. The Court reasoned that the seizure was necessary to prevent the cotton from being used to aid the Confederate forces and that the claimants had no right to compensation because the cotton was taken for public use. The Court also held that the claimants had no right to compensation because the cotton was taken for public use and that the government had the right to take property for public use without compensation. The Court concluded that the seizure of the cotton was valid and that the claimants were not entitled to compensation.

In the case of Gustave A. Le More and Leontee Le More, Claimants of 830 Bales of Cotton v. The United States, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the claimants should be allowed to recover damages for their cotton bales that were seized by Union forces during the Civil War. He reasoned that since Congress had not passed any legislation authorizing such seizures or providing compensation for them, it was unconstitutional for Union forces to take property without due process and without just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, Field argued that even if there had been some sort of authorization from Congress allowing these seizures, they would still have been illegal because they violated international law principles prohibiting interference with neutral vessels carrying contraband goods destined for enemy ports. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since no legal authority existed at the time permitting such actions against private citizens' property rights during wartime conditions and since no just compensation was provided after seizure occurred; therefore it was unjustified to deny recovery in this case on behalf of Gustave A. Le More and Leontee Le More who were seeking damages related to their 830 bales of cotton taken by Union forces during the Civil War